The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Fraud is a crime of fraud, by deceiving a person, by omitting it into mistake, and by taking property or pecuniary advantage through an act of disposal resulting from such deception. Therefore, even if a deception occurred, if there is no act of disposal resulting from such deception, fraud is not established;

Even in so-called litigation fraud, the judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, shall have the content and effect in lieu of the dispositive act of the victim, and in other cases, there is no act of delivering property by mistake.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court’s decision to commence a compulsory sale of the above building against the nominal owner in collusion with the above nominal owner, and accordingly, the court’s decision to commence a compulsory sale of the above building should be rendered. Accordingly, even if a building was sold at the auction procedure, even if the above request for a compulsory sale of the building was made at the same time with its own expense and effort, it cannot be deemed as a crime of fraud in relation to the true owner.

Because the effect of registration of preservation of ownership in the above auction procedure does not extend to the above true owner, not to the party to the trial, because it is difficult to see that the judgment of the court, which is the defrauded, has the content and effect in lieu of the victim's dispositive act.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are as follows: “The owner of the instant house, the victim of which is the actual owner, was merely the owner of the instant house, and the Defendant, on the ground of F, ordered F to receive a false payment order against the Defendant, and F to do so.